The Koh-i-Noor diamond, and why the British won’t give it back (2017)
smithsonianmag.com
The Koh-i-Noor diamond, and why the British won’t give it back (2017)
1–10 of 327 posts
Re: The Koh-i-Noor diamond, and why the British won’t give it back (2017)
#2Vae victis, and to the victor go the spoils. (This is not an endorsement.)
> "When the powerful take things from the less powerful, the powerless don't have much to do except curse the powerful," Kurin says.
Indeed.
Re: The Koh-i-Noor diamond, and why the British won’t give it back (2017)
#3Not a fan of the British crown (why are they exempt from taxes during record high inflation) but who should they return the diamond to - Afghanistan (it was the Durranis that looted it from Nader Shah after he looted it from the Mughals), India (Maharaja Ranjit Singh took it as tribute from Shah Shuja after conquering Kashmir from the Durranis), or Pakistan (the Sikh Empire capital was Lahore and the Durrani Empire capital was Peshawar until the last Sikh-Afghan War, thus any claim India or Afghanistan has on either Empire's legacy is also owned by Pakistan, even inspite of Partition or the Durrand Line).
On top of that, if it goes to India - should it be owned by the Central/Federal government, the Punjab government (the state that is the core of the former Sikh Empire), Jammu Kashmir's Government (because of Shah Shuja and Raja Gulab Singh), Delhi Government (the Mughal capital), or Andhra Pradesh Government (the mine is located there). And is it worth putting a logjam into the Free Trade Agreement India and the UK are currently negotating?
If they give it to Pakistan, should it go to the Pakistan Federal Government, Punjab Government (the state that is the core of the former Sikh Empire), AJK Government (because of Shah Shuja and Raja Gulab Singh), or Khyber Pakhtunkwa Government (the state that is the core of the former Sikh Empire and former Durrani Empire)? Is it worth putting British Humanitarian and Military Aid at risk?
If they give it to Afghanistan, is it to the Taliban led government, or the government in exile? Is it worth putting British Aid and potential recognition at risk?
It's a conundrum and an complicated legal question that honestly isn't worth it for any of the countries, all of whom have bigger issues to deal with, also it can be argued that the Sikh Empire handed it to the UK fairly.
Re: The Koh-i-Noor diamond, and why the British won’t give it back (2017)
#4Vae victis, and to the victor go the spoils. (This is not an endorsement.) > "When the powerful take things from the less powerful, the powerless don't have much to do except curse the powerful," Kurin says. Indeed.
No post body was provided.
Re: The Koh-i-Noor diamond, and why the British won’t give it back (2017)
#5“And just as with ethnology, which plays at extricating itself from its object to better secure itself in its pure form, demuseumification is nothing but another spiral in artificiality. Witness the cloister of Saint-Michel de Cuxa, which one will repatriate at great cost from the Cloisters in New York to reinstall it in "its original site." And everyone is supposed to applaud this restitution (as they did "the experimental campaign to take back the sidewalks" on the Champs Elysees!). Well, if the exportation of the cornices was in effect an arbitrary act, if the Cloisters in New York are an artificial mosaic of all cultures (following a logic of the capitalist centralization of value), their reimportation to the original site is even more artificial: it is a total simulacrum that links up with "reality" through a complete circumvolution.
The cloister should have stayed in New York in its simulated environment, which at least fooled no one. Repatriating it is nothing but a supplementary subterfuge, acting as if nothing had happened and indulging in retrospective hallucination.”
Baudrillard - Simulacra And Simulation
Re: The Koh-i-Noor diamond, and why the British won’t give it back (2017)
#6Vae victis, and to the victor go the spoils. (This is not an endorsement.) > "When the powerful take things from the less powerful, the powerless don't have much to do except curse the powerful," Kurin says. Indeed.
Also, any efforts by the powerless to redress the balance are generally labeled terrorism.
Re: The Koh-i-Noor diamond, and why the British won’t give it back (2017)
#7James Acaster does a great job highlighting the absurdity of the British refusing to repatriate stuff taken from the empire.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x73PkUvArJY
Re: The Koh-i-Noor diamond, and why the British won’t give it back (2017)
#8Vae victis, and to the victor go the spoils. (This is not an endorsement.) > "When the powerful take things from the less powerful, the powerless don't have much to do except curse the powerful," Kurin says. Indeed.
They stole it fair and square. If somebody is mad about it they should steal it back.
Re: The Koh-i-Noor diamond, and why the British won’t give it back (2017)
#9Vae victis, and to the victor go the spoils. (This is not an endorsement.) > "When the powerful take things from the less powerful, the powerless don't have much to do except curse the powerful," Kurin says. Indeed.
Also, any efforts by the powerless to redress the balance are generally labeled terrorism.
No, not really. Just those efforts that aim to terrorize.
Re: The Koh-i-Noor diamond, and why the British won’t give it back (2017)
#10Vae victis, and to the victor go the spoils. (This is not an endorsement.) > "When the powerful take things from the less powerful, the powerless don't have much to do except curse the powerful," Kurin says. Indeed.
Also, any efforts by the powerless to redress the balance are generally labeled terrorism.
Not really